Epstein Secrets

venors/Appellants ON APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BRIEF OF INTERVENORS/APPELLANTS ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300

. Ann. §2410; Oregon: Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.435; Pennsylvania: Pa. R. Evid. 410; Rhode Island: R.I. R. Evid. 410; South Carolina: S.C. R. Evid. 410; South Dakota: S.D.C.L. §19-12-12; Tennessee: Tenn. R. Evid. 410; Texas: Texas R. Evid. 410; Utah: Utah R. Evid. 410; Vermont: Vt. R. Evid. 410; Virginia: Va. S.C

in drove a parent off the road, I don't think that would be missing in the negotiations between his new counsel. Then Mr. Goldberger was joined by Roy Black, a Miami attorney who I know well. Mr. Black has never been asked about it or told about it and does not know the investigator. Mr. Goldberger doe

commercial profit. We've provided the Court with some of the division in the law, including decisions by this Court, by Judge Jones relying on a South Dakota opinion, by the chief justice that finds the statute inapplicable. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00079774 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11

in drove a parent off the road, I don't think that would be missing in the negotiations between his new counsel. Then Mr. Goldberger was joined by Roy Black, a Miami attorney who I know well. Mr. Black has never been asked about it or told about it and does not know the investigator. Mr. Goldberger doe

commercial profit. We've provided the Court with some of the division in the law, including decisions by this Court, by Judge Jones relying on a South Dakota opinion, by the chief justice that finds the statute inapplicable. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00095416 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11

(USAFLS) From: Roy Black < Sent: Wednesda , Februa 11, 2015 8:50 AM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Your phone call Great. Speak to you then. Original Message From: (U

s that have discussed directly which of the two rules applies have concluded that Rule 21 is the appropriate vehicle for adding a party. See, e.g.. South Dakota ex rel. S. Dakota R.R. Awh.l. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 280 F. Supp. 2d 919, 924 (D.S.D. 2003) ("Pleadings and Motions are dealt with under